By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Halo Reach look awesome

twesterm said:
JaggedSac said:
twesterm said:
nightsurge said:
All Bungie cutscenes are in-game engine rendered. The actual gameplay will look like this, too.

There's a difference between in-engine and in-game.  No idea what the difference will be for Halo: Reach, but in-engine is typically pre-recorded with nothing else processing except what is absolutely needed on a super high end computer.

Best example-- Left 4 Dead.  All of their cut scenes are in-engine on their insane computers but the actual game models are nowhere as near expensive as those.

I didn't think developers would record in-engine output for cutscenes.  Seems like it would a better practice to run them real time in order to conserve disc space.  This is what Bungie always does.  They never play video for their cutscenes, you can tell this by texture pop in that would occur :)

Some stuff is pre-recorded, some cut scenes don't need to be. 

It's generally done in-engine rather than elaborate CGI because it's infinitely cheaper and you can brag that everything is in-engine.

You guys had some cut scenes in Ghostbusters.  Were they running real time or were they pre-recorded?  I assumed they were real time.

 

EDIT:  I know developers use better post processing effects and better in game assets during cut scenes(due to no AI, physics, collision detection, etc), but I thought even Uncharted cutscenes were real time rendered.



Around the Network
JaggedSac said:
twesterm said:
JaggedSac said:
twesterm said:
nightsurge said:
All Bungie cutscenes are in-game engine rendered. The actual gameplay will look like this, too.

There's a difference between in-engine and in-game.  No idea what the difference will be for Halo: Reach, but in-engine is typically pre-recorded with nothing else processing except what is absolutely needed on a super high end computer.

Best example-- Left 4 Dead.  All of their cut scenes are in-engine on their insane computers but the actual game models are nowhere as near expensive as those.

I didn't think developers would record in-engine output for cutscenes.  Seems like it would a better practice to run them real time in order to conserve disc space.  This is what Bungie always does.  They never play video for their cutscenes, you can tell this by texture pop in that would occur :)

Some stuff is pre-recorded, some cut scenes don't need to be. 

It's generally done in-engine rather than elaborate CGI because it's infinitely cheaper and you can brag that everything is in-engine.

You guys had some cut scenes in Ghostbusters.  Were they running real time or were they pre-recorded?  I assumed they were real time.

 

EDIT:  I know developers use better post processing effects and better in game assets during cut scenes(due to no AI, physics, collision detection, etc), but I thought even Uncharted cutscenes were real time rendered.

Nope, like I said, play the game and change Drake's shirt and you will see exactly which ones are pre-recorded.  It's generally the ones that occur when changing major areas because you have to load all that stuff in at some point.  I assume Uncharted 2 is the same way, I just haven't played through it with a different costume so I don't know which ones those are (though you can generally tell).

As for Ghostbusters, it was a mix of all three, though I forget which ones were which.  All three have their pro's and con's

  • In-game: absolutely in-game so it's the cheapest and easiest to change, but you also have physics, AI, effects, and everything else running.  In a lot of cases the player has control of the camera so I have to take all that into account.
  • In-engine: I have complete control over everything so that means AI isn't processing if I don't need it, and the camera can't see it, it isn't on.  Also, easy to change since it's all in-house and just involves changing that scene and then pressing record.  It takes time but it isn't something that's all too expensive when compared to other things.
  • Pre-rendered: the best looking but also the most expensive since I believe this is generally don't off site.  Also, if you ever have to change *anything* you either just have to live with whatever the mistake is or have to completely redo it which is incredibly expensive.


twesterm said:

Nope, like I said, play the game and change Drake's shirt and you will see exactly which ones are pre-recorded.  It's generally the ones that occur when changing major areas because you have to load all that stuff in at some point.  I assume Uncharted 2 is the same way, I just haven't played through it with a different costume so I don't know which ones those are (though you can generally tell).

As for Ghostbusters, it was a mix of all three, though I forget which ones were which.  All three have their pro's and con's

  • In-game: absolutely in-game so it's the cheapest and easiest to change, but you also have physics, AI, effects, and everything else running.  In a lot of cases the player has control of the camera so I have to take all that into account.
  • In-engine: I have complete control over everything so that means AI isn't processing if I don't need it, and the camera can't see it, it isn't on.  Also, easy to change since it's all in-house and just involves changing that scene and then pressing record.  It takes time but it isn't something that's all too expensive when compared to other things.
  • Pre-rendered: the best looking but also the most expensive since I believe this is generally don't off site.  Also, if you ever have to change *anything* you either just have to live with whatever the mistake is or have to completely redo it which is incredibly expensive.

That is interesting, I thought all of you guy's stuff was generated at least in-engine real time. 



JaggedSac said:
twesterm said:

Nope, like I said, play the game and change Drake's shirt and you will see exactly which ones are pre-recorded.  It's generally the ones that occur when changing major areas because you have to load all that stuff in at some point.  I assume Uncharted 2 is the same way, I just haven't played through it with a different costume so I don't know which ones those are (though you can generally tell).

As for Ghostbusters, it was a mix of all three, though I forget which ones were which.  All three have their pro's and con's

  • In-game: absolutely in-game so it's the cheapest and easiest to change, but you also have physics, AI, effects, and everything else running.  In a lot of cases the player has control of the camera so I have to take all that into account.
  • In-engine: I have complete control over everything so that means AI isn't processing if I don't need it, and the camera can't see it, it isn't on.  Also, easy to change since it's all in-house and just involves changing that scene and then pressing record.  It takes time but it isn't something that's all too expensive when compared to other things.
  • Pre-rendered: the best looking but also the most expensive since I believe this is generally don't off site.  Also, if you ever have to change *anything* you either just have to live with whatever the mistake is or have to completely redo it which is incredibly expensive.

That is interesting, I thought all of you guy's stuff was generated at least in-engine real time. 

I don't believe there are many of them, if you have the PC version you can see which ones are which but I've already forgotten which ones they are.  >_>



twesterm said:
JaggedSac said:
twesterm said:
nightsurge said:
All Bungie cutscenes are in-game engine rendered. The actual gameplay will look like this, too.

There's a difference between in-engine and in-game.  No idea what the difference will be for Halo: Reach, but in-engine is typically pre-recorded with nothing else processing except what is absolutely needed on a super high end computer.

Best example-- Left 4 Dead.  All of their cut scenes are in-engine on their insane computers but the actual game models are nowhere as near expensive as those.

I didn't think developers would record in-engine output for cutscenes.  Seems like it would a better practice to run them real time in order to conserve disc space.  This is what Bungie always does.  They never play video for their cutscenes, you can tell this by texture pop in that would occur :)

Some stuff is pre-recorded, some cut scenes don't need to be. 

It's generally done in-engine rather than elaborate CGI because it's infinitely cheaper, you can hide loading times, and you can brag that everything is in-engine.

Another good example-- Uncharted.

I haven't done this in Uncharted 2, but in Uncharted change Drake's shirt and then play and you'll see which ones are pre-recorded in-engine and which ones aren't.

I did it.  It was a staggering amount, actually.

My big thing is that Halo 3 never (in my opinion) looked as good as that E3 Halo 3 announcement trailer a few years ago.  I think that Halo Reach will have similar results.



Around the Network

I really liked the way they introduced each spartan characters. I am starting to like the stories of HALO Universe but not the games just yet.



it looks good, but i've seen better on the 360.
like alan wake.



I live for the burn...and the sting of pleasure...
I live for the sword, the steel, and the gun...

- Wasteland - The Mission.

Yeah it will be the ultimate mutiplayer experience ever.



 

   PROUD MEMBER OF THE PLAYSTATION 3 : RPG FAN CLUB